Bitter Tea

.
I found this online after a brief Google search asking “what does the Tea Party stand for?” Considering the fact that the “Tea Party” now appears to be shaping the course of our current elections, I thought I should know:

The issues and ideas that are at the core of the Tea Party movement:

1) All forms of government must abide by the boundaries set forth in state and federal constitutions.

2) All pork and earmarks in the stimulus, omnibus bills, and bailouts must be reversed and repealed. The national budget must be balanced. Spending cuts, not increased taxation should be used to balance the budget.

3) Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness implies personal responsibility, not handouts, free-enterprise and capitalism, not government controlled economies. Some people choose to be irresponsible (and of course some fall on hard times due to circumstances), but it is not the responsibility of the general public, vis-a-vis government intervention, to guarantee or bailout irresponsibility and failure. Private individuals and organizations give out of compassion and generosity, not compulsion through taxation. laws, and pork barrel projects.

4) ALL elected and appointed officials are under the employment and serve at the will of We the People.

5) Excessive tax burdens kill prosperity.

6) Excessive national debt is generational theft, and stealing the future of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

7) Neither major political party is "clean" on these issues. Both Democrats and Republicans have taxed excessively and neither have restrained the hand of government effectively. There are certainly individual representatives who have been faithful to their constituents and to the Constitution. However, too many are engaged in protecting their congressional positions and turf. The majority of government officials have insulated themselves from the people they serve, and hold themselves above the law. We are simply saying, "No, you aren't above the law".

8 ) The American public at large is ignorant of the purpose of government, the founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers. As a result, they allow politicians to sell them false hope and "rights" and "entitlements" that are not guaranteed by the Constitution. By educating the American people on the foundations of our history, we hope to bring sanity to the election and legislative processes.

9) As a group, we are appalled at the audaciousness and arrogance of our government in the last few years, particularly the proposals and bills passed in the last few months, despite massive public disapproval.

The Tea Party is a wake-up call to all Americans.

I read through that explanation a few times, and I have to admit, I agree with a lot of it. I hate big government (despite the fact that I am a tiny cog in the machinery and my families livelihood depends upon the paycheck I receive from the taxpayer treasury). I’ve jokingly said for years that there are entire branches of government that could likely be shut down today and the only one noticing tomorrow would be those not getting a paycheck.

I believe we should have a balanced budget. I believe our elected officials should be responsible to the voters, not lobbyists and special interests. I hate earmarks and pork spending. I don’t like high taxes.

But if it’s all so good, why does my nose keep twitching from the odd smell? What is it that makes the whole Tea Party movement seem so…fishy?

For me, and I think a lot of others, it mostly comes down to timing. How strange that the movement didn’t truly kick off until the fall of 2008 and the election of Barack Obama. Despite explanation #7 (that both parties are dirty), and assurances from leaders and members of the party that they are neither “Republican” based nor “racist,” it seems highly coincidental that the election of the first black president and the overwhelming defeat of the Republican party marks the sudden awakening of patriotism in America.

Really bad timing.

There was no uprising during the George W. Bush years, while our national debt spiraled out of control and government grew to unprecedented levels with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Where was their concern during those years?

We are beat over the head at work about ethics and the terrible “appearance of impropriety.” This is explained to us as something that might be perfectly innocent, but still “looks bad.” I would hope that this is the case with the Tea Party. I am sure that there are many followers of the movement who truly are free of prejudice and only want what’s best for our country…but it still “looks bad.”

I’m not saying that because Barack Obama is black that he should be given a free pass…far from it. He was elected to one of the most powerful positions in the world and should be held accountable for each decision. He made the choice to accept this position, and in the brilliant words of the Spiderman universe, “with great power comes great responsibility.”

But seriously, the man had not arrived at the White House before he was being picketed. He had barely had time to unpack before protesters were calling for his impeachment. Not since Lincoln has a President stepped into office facing such immediate and destructive animosity.

With such stubborn, bitter opposition, there can never be compromise. The decision of who Obama was and what he stood for was made before he was elected, and there would be no dialogue or debate.  There appears to be only one goal, and that is a removal from power as soon as possible.

That is the most frightening part of this movement.   They don't want him to do anything good for our country, nor help in any way for him to do it.   So assured are they that he will fail, they wish for it to be so…and therefore, in the blind pursuit of their own interests, wish failure upon us all.  

Trigger Effect

Yesterday New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg made his way to Capitol Hill to ask Congress to consider passing a bill that would prohibit anyone on the FBI’s Terrorist Watch List from purchasing a gun or explosives. When I heard this, my first thought was, “isn’t this a law already?” I mean, seriously, why do we have a list of potential terrorists and then willingly allow them to purchase an AK-47 or sticks of Dynamite. That’s kind of like going on a donut diet. It’s a diet in name only and the outcome won’t be very pleasant.

Of course, the mere mention of a gun law brings out the raised hackles of the sworn protectors of the second Amendment. Terrified that someone might dare take their gun from their cold, dead hands, they don’t care who can buy them or how anyone gets them. Our forefathers, in their infinite wisdom, gave every American citizen the “right to bear arms,” so by golly, that means you’re absolutely un-American if you don’t believe that means complete and unfettered access to every possible weapon conceived or manufactured.

Senator Lindsey Graham R-S.C. stated his fears that this would infringe upon innocent citizens constitutional rights. He, and others who refused to support the law, said that the Terrorist Watch List is inaccurate and often contains names of people who are completely innocent of any wrong-doing. Gun enthusiast blogs are saying that if the law is passed the list will be expanded and used as a way to keep any American citizen who doesn’t agree with the government (like Tea Party members) from owning a gun.

While I have to agree that the last thing I want is a group of angry, possibly racist, Glenn Beck worshiping protesters to be forced to riot without the protection of their weaponry, I still think that there is room to negotiate. Is it even conceivable that the flag raising patriots of the NRA would want guns or explosives to be sold to a potential terrorist? Are they so terrified of losing the semi-automatic assault rifle that they use for duck hunting that they are willing to endanger the lives of other American citizens?

Sarcasm aside (at least for a moment), is it really that hard to find a middle ground here? I can understand the justifiable fears that a “watch” list could be inaccurate or used inappropriately. If someone hasn’t thought of doing that already, they probably will. But does that mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water?

If the list is inaccurate, the common sense thing to do might be to FIX THE LIST. Set some iron-clad rules about who goes on the list and why. Make sure that there can be no confusion with a three year old that happens to have the same name. With today’s technology, should this really be that difficult?  Develop an expedient and reasonable review process if someone challenges their entry on the list.

As usual, both sides of this argument need to listen to what the other is saying. They need to sit down and work out their concerns like adults given a serious responsibility. Extremists from either side need not apply.

Walkng a fine (border) line

Last week the state of Arizona passed a law that, among other things, would require police to check the immigration status of anyone they believe is in the country illegally. Obviously, this has created a huge uproar; as pretty much everything does these days. Not much gets done anymore for the simple reason that our politicians are terrified that some lunatic is going to be on a street corner with a sign condemning the decision.


President Obama, who made a campaign pledge to tackle immigration issues early in his presidency, has come out against the law, calling it “misguided” and asking members of his administration to monitor the actions of the state for potential “civil rights” violations. The main thing he got right on this subject was his suggestion that it is the federal government’s “failure to act” which has caused Arizona to pass the new legislation.


Illegal immigration is a serious problem in our country and growing more serious with each passing year. Despite the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and talks of a more secure border, the floodgates continue broadening and our cities and towns are drowning under the surge. Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants, with 700 miles of border available for crossing.


Despite the fact that entering the United States without proper documentation is itself a crime, there are additional crimes associated with this problem. Unable to legally purchase a car or car insurance, many use cash to buy their transportation and then drive the same roads as law abiding citizens, without insurance or understanding of specific laws.


Salaries are paid in cash, with no taxes paid, yet public services are shared like any other citizen, including education and hospital services. There are currently approximately five million children of illegal aliens in our nation’s schools, yet budgets are being cut and teachers are being let go because we don’t have the money to fund them. Meanwhile, an estimated 29 billion dollars has been wired back to Mexico in the last five years.


Not all who cross our border are looking for work or a better life for their family. Some are escaping prosecution in their native land and bring their criminal behavior with them to the U.S. Federal investigators believe that in 2005 alone, as much as 2.2 million kilograms of cocaine and 11.6 kilograms of marijuana were smuggled into the United States. Drug Cartels in Mexico and South America use gangs in our country to distribute their product and siphon the money back to them.


In response to Arizona’s new law, protesters are arguing that “profiling” will take place and “civil rights” will be abused. I hate to say it, but they are probably right about the profiling. It’s something that’s done every day by everyone, even the most liberal minded. We make snap judgments about people based on the way the look. It’s not one of our more attractive human traits.


We see a homeless person and we assume that they are either dangerous or lazy. We see a blond cheerleader and we assume that she is not very intelligent. We see someone of Middle Eastern appearance get on a plane and we keep our eye on them. We find ourselves in a “bad” section of town and assume that every person is a criminal and out to get us. We “profile.”


So, is it right that anyone who looks Mexican or a Latin American will be profiled as a potential illegal immigrant? Absolutely not. It’s not in the least bit fair that legal American citizens will be asked to produce a Drivers License or other documentation to prove that they are supposed to be here. But, there’s a lot in life that’s not fair. My question is, “does it really infringe upon the quality of their life or their rights as a U.S. citizen to be asked to provide identification?”   I am not so sure it does. 


There is no way to know who is legal and who is not without asking for documentation. Does that mean it should not be done? I am sure a lot of very intelligent people have debated ways to solve this problem and it really comes down to somebody having the authority to ask the question and view the proof.


I know it’s easy for me to say, “Deal with it.” I am a white male who has only had to deal with discrimination or profiling by people who think I eat too many donuts. I keep asking myself how I would feel if I was a Latino citizen of the United States who is expected to produce documentation at the whim of any police officer who sees me walk or drive by. Would I be happy about it? No, I’m sure I would not. But would I accept it as part of a solution to a much bigger problem? I hope so.


Of course, the biggest protests revolve around the notion of Civil Rights.   Boycotts of Arizona are being organized and petitions are being signed.   I've heard the evil phrase "Nazi state" mentioned.   The grandstands are full of people furious and disgusted at the horror surely to come.

Honestly though, I think it's fairly offensive to compare the "asking for identification" to some of atrocities that have occured in our nation and planet's past.   This is not racial or ethnic segregation or discrimination.  There are no “back of the bus” motives. American citizens will not be taken off to camps or forced into separate schools. Show your Identification and move on.  Only those who are breaking the law will be affected beyond that request.

I know it could easily get out of control.  There needs to be strong governence to make sure that the identification requests are handled delicately and with respect.  Anyone found abusing this law should be dealt with quickly and firmly.

But while we wait for a flashing sign to magically appear over the head of those in this country illegally, can anyone think of a better way?   Let's not lose sight of that essential truth:  If you are in our country without legal documentation, you are breaking the law.  

I have been stopped numerous times at road blocks, where I am asked for my license and if I’ve been drinking. The officers always lean in close enough to smell if I am lying, no matter how trustworthy and innocent I look. I am profiled for being in a car, because some people don't know that it's not only illegal but dangerous and stupid to drink and drive, but it’s the price I pay for safety on the road. I don’t mind.


Every time I go to the airport, I am required to remove my shoes, take off my jacket, place my laptop in a bin by itself, and stand patiently while a transportation security officer examines my driver’s license to see if I look the same as my picture. Most days I do, but I still have a second or two of worry that they will pull me aside and say, “You don’t really weigh that!”


Do I complain that I am treated like a terrorist every single time I fly just because some idiot tried to set his shoe on fire? No, I don’t, because it’s price I pay to be a citizen and fly safely. I don’t mind.


My suggestion to those who are upset that they might be required to present their driver’s license or proof of citizenship just because a policeman thinks they are illegal? Grin and bear it. If you have nothing to hide, you’ll be fine. Don’t be defensive, be legal.


Of course, Arizona shouldn’t have had to pass this law. And most likely it will be either overturned or watered down to the point that it is not going to be an issue anyway.   The best thing about it's passage is it might well force our federal government to act on Immigration Reform.  

Congress and politicians have fought over details and tiptoed around the question of civil rights for so long, I think they started thinking that the problem would simply go away.  It has not, and without action it will only continue to get worse.  Hard decisions must be made and action must be taken. It is time that the President and Congress do something:


• Develop a realistic “amnesty” program for illegal immigrants who are in this country and trying to work and provide for their families. (This amnesty should come with probation and a tax system so they pay like the rest of us).


• Make it easier to become a citizen (many are here illegally because of the bureaucracy involved in achieving citizen status).


• Crack down on the borders (spend some stimulus dollars there; build walls, increase patrols, ask smart people outside of the government what can be done)


• Support the states, don’t hinder them. Border States are the first line of defense, yet they pay the highest price in crime and economics.


• Hold Mexico and other nations accountable for their part of the problem.


• Hit the street gangs hard. Consider them internal terrorists and treat them as such. Stop the flow of drugs into our country and the flow of money out.


• Crack down on employers of illegals and those who sell them cars, guns or alcohol without proper documentation.


• Develop strict laws on enforcement behavior to ensure the rights of legal citizens are not abused. Further, make sure illegal immigrants that are apprehended are treated with respect and courtesy until a course of action is identified.


None of this should be considered a slap in the face to our many fine LEGAL immigrants. Let’s face it, with the exception of the Native Americans, all of us are immigrants. Our nation was founded on the basis of growth and new beginnings. We should never hinder that. But there has to be a legal process to follow, and we can’t continue to ignore the fact that our laws are being broken daily by the very presence of illegal immigrants.

Blame Game

I was in Wal-Mart the other day, stocking up on travel supplies, when I encountered a young man on the aisle where shaving and hair products were located. While I checked prices on various shampoos and paid him little mind, his wife or significant other arrived with a cart.


“Look at this,” he said, and held out some kind of razor kit to her. The anger in his voice was obvious, and I thought for a minute that he was upset with her for some reason. He shook the package in her face, “Thirteen dollars!”

She nodded her head in agreement, something I believe she has to do a lot and said, “That’s pretty high.”

“I used to could get these for six or seven dollars,” he said, in disgust. Then he added, “Thank you, Mr. Obama!”

I almost laughed. If not for the fact that he looked and acted like the kind of guy who liked to kick puppies for fun, I would have. It was almost like watching a Saturday Night Live skit about stupid people, but then I realized that this really shouldn’t have been funny. When I had time to think about it, what he said was both a little bit scary and pathetically sad because this man actually walks among us, breathing our air and taking up space in the checkout line. He and his anger are on the road when I and my family are. He also has the ability to procreate.

Now, don’t get me wrong, if you want to get upset with the current President over the jobless rate, Health Care Reform, taxes or his stance on foreign affairs, then by all means, you have a right to your opinion. I might not agree with you on all your points, but that’s okay. Let’s have a reasonable, respectful discussion and then go get some coffee.

But when someone blames the President for the price of a razor, I think he has some serious issues. First and foremost, he’s an idiot. He might not be able to do anything about that, because he was probably born that way. Unfortunately, there is no cure, and no amount of logic can persuade him otherwise. He is probably a miserably unhappy person who goes through life looking for someone to blame. In the case of the razor, he would have been wiser to be upset with Mr. Gillette, but I got the impression that everything wrong in this man’s life was now being blamed on Barack Hussein Obama (accent on the “Hussein”).

Second, and more bothersome, he’s likely not alone in this train of thought. There are a lot of unhappy people in this world who don’t want to accept responsibility for any of their failings and look for a big target to pin all their troubles on. We end up seeing some of these people in news stories, being described by the neighbors as “quiet” and “kept to themselves.”

This kind of “blame game” goes on with every president. There were idiots on the left who blamed every single problem in the world on George W. Bush. They were just as wrong as this Wal-Mart half-wit. I didn’t agree with a lot of what Bush did, but he had neither the power nor capability to either improve or destroy every component of my life. Same goes for Barack Obama.

Do I think that $13 is high for a package of razors? You bet (that’s another reason why I started growing a beard). But anyone with any common sense knows that pretty much all the “stuff” we buy has been going up in price for a long, long time. I hate to say it, but that’s what “capitalism” is all about: making more money. It doesn’t mean that we ALL make more money, but someone does. While we don’t have to be happy about it, we at least have to be realistic.

Unless we’re an idiot.

Say You, Say Me

I’ve been a proponent of Health Care Reform for many years, yet it’s kind of hard to do a lot of celebrating today, despite the House passage of the Bill last night that supposedly paves the way for serious change. It’s been an ugly battle, and the win has not been without some collateral ethical damage (allegations of back-room deals and intimidation). The final vote ended up being completely partisan with not a single Republican voting in favor of passage. Once again, I find myself asking, "how have we become so divided?"

What’s interesting is that in listening to the news and reading articles about the so-called “debate” amongst our nations duly elected officials, there was little discussion about what particular parts of the Bill did or didn’t work. It appeared that there was no sincere negotiating going on from either side; merely posturing and political gamesmanship.

It became brutally apparent that the Republicans had no interest at all in any kind of Health Care Reform, if for no other reason than the fact that it was a vital part of Barack Obama’s agenda. The Democrats, meanwhile spoke often of “transparency,” yet pulled the shades on any real discussions and offered no olive branch to those across the aisle to smooth things over. Watching CSPAN is like watching a bad reality show; a mix of Jersey Shore and Survivor, except it’s the audience who turns out to be the Biggest Loser.

Outside the capital, under the watchful eye of the media, thousands of protestors marched and chanted in opposition of…well…they didn’t really seem to know for sure. They hadn’t actually read the Bill, so they just seemed to oppose change in general. They apparently had it on good authority that Barack Obama is not only an “illegal alien,” but also a “liberal,” “socialist,” “progressive,” “commie,” “white hating racist” who is determined to destroy America. (Wow, I didn’t get that impression from him at all, but then again, I used to like those Naked Gun movies with O.J. Simpson, so that just shows how poor a judge of character I am).

Based on a sampling of signs and attitudes, some of these protesters are just a step away from the Skinheads and survivalists who pick and choose passages from the Bill of Rights as a means to do as they wish. They don’t want to pay taxes, obey laws or submit to any authority. I say give them what they want. Give them all a patch of land in southwest Texas and then build a big fence around it. They are no longer allowed to drive on our roads (funded by tax dollars), purchase any American products or food (subsidized and required to be safe by tax dollars). They must exchange their money for gold, since the bills and coins are printed at the Federal Mint (funded by tax dollars), and they will have no electric or running water. I’m sure they don’t care though, they don’t need anybody.

You see, what I don’t understand is that if any of these protesters, politicians or conservative radio commentators had such a problem with “big government,” then why were they not screaming like banshees seven years ago during the development of the Department of Homeland Security? With over 200,000 employee’s and a current budget of over 43 billion dollars, most people don’t have a clue what it actually does, nor the scope of its reach, yet when it was being announced no one dared to question it’s necessity for fear of being called “unpatriotic.”

Don’t get me wrong…I’m not saying we shouldn’t be secure. In the time directly after 9/11 we were all desperately worried about our safety, so a new cabinet office that would oversee all aspects of “homeland security” made some sense (at least in a panicked, “what can we do?” kind of way). Still, for those whose main gripe with Health Care Reform is cost, it seems particularly hypocritical that they did not stand up to at least ask a few questions.

But I digress...

I don’t really think any of this hullabaloo is about Health Care. It could have been a bill over jobs or education or the environment; the battle lines would have still been the same. It is not socialism or spiraling debt that we need to fear, it is our own stubborn irrationality. If our citizens continue to blindly follow some political ideology or opinion to its unhealthy end, then our nation is truly doomed.

 
.

Jim Bunning...American

I’m a big believer in standing up for what you believe in. There’s just something about the little guy fighting the establishment, arms raised in defiance, refusing to give in, that makes you realize that there really are heroes in this world. I think about the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” and the image of Jimmy Stewart, exhausted and alone, standing up to Congress for what he knows is right. I love that movie. I love Jimmy Stewart.

I’m sure that some part of Senator Jim Bunning believed, in this last week or so, that he was Jimmy Stewart. He imagined himself, so close to retiring, going out as a hero. A champion for the little man. A true American patriot. There was just one problem: Jim Bunning is an idiot.

Everyone with any common sense knows that our government spending is out of control. The national debt has become so bloated that it really isn’t a number any more, it’s just this thing that we know exists but ignore (like when the Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses knock on our door. We sit quietly and pretend not to notice until the knocking stops). It’s a problem for the future, and we are nothing in America if not spectacular procrastinators.

But Jim Bunning wanted to make a stand. He decided to put a stop to an emergency spending bill because we (our federal government) did not have the money to pay for it. That’s something that most of us deal with every day. It’s called “living paycheck to paycheck.” Most of us know that if we want a new car, we have to have the money in our budget to make the payments.

That logic does not apply to the government. First, they can print money. (Obviously, we can too, but it doesn’t usually work out well). Second, they have unlimited credit and don’t get in trouble if they miss or make late payments. It’s a beautiful system.

James Paul David Bunning was a baseball player and one of the rare major league pitchers to have pitched a “perfect game.” After retiring from Detroit Tigers after seventeen seasons, he returned with his celebrity to Kentucky and began stair-stepping his way from office to office until he reached a seat in the House of Representatives and eventually the Senate.

His tenure in congress has not been notable, other than its lack of noteworthiness. In April of 2006, Time Magazine named him one of America’s Five Worst Senators. He was dubbed “the Underperformer” for his "lackluster performance", saying he "shows little interest in policy unless it involves baseball", and criticized his hostility towards staff and fellow Senators and his "bizarre behavior" during his 2004 campaign.

Bunning missed more than a week of the January 2009 session of Congress, saying he had a family commitment to attend to. When asked if he would explain where he was, he said “No, I’d rather not.”

He was the only senator to miss the Christmas Eve 2009 vote on Health Care Reform. In fact, he missed 21 votes in the Senate in December (one more than 91 year old, wheelchair bound and ailing Senator Robert Byrd). This is a man who is truly dedicated to his service to the American people!  If he were in the private sector he would be fired (maybe then, he would care more about the "unemployed").

On February 25, 2010, Bunning decided to wage war on an emergency spending bill that would extend funding for unemployment benefits and other federal programs, demanding that the money needed to be cut from other programs in order to pay for it. While the logic of “pay as you go” (only approving bills if there is funding available to pay for it) and the need for a balanced budget is overwhelming, you have to choose your battles, and Bunning made an amazingly poor choice on that front.   It's doubly odd that he chose to stand up for "pay as you go" because he voted against it each time it was brought before the senate!

His funding freeze tactic held up government checks for over 400,000 unemployed Americans and sent another 2000 workers into furlough when their project funding was stopped. This seems especially hypocritical and petty considering that Bunning’s Senate salary is $170,000 a year (in addition to his other perks and government provided health coverage), while the average benefits paid out in unemployment and COBRA insurance match payments comes to less than $16,000 per year. How were these people expected to pay their bills and feed their children while Bunning played his political games? Bunning didn’t care.

To express how much he was sacrificing in his quest for fiscal responsibility, he announced on the Senate floor "I have missed the Kentucky-South Carolina game that started at 9:00 and it's the only redeeming chance we had to beat South Carolina since they're the only team that has beat Kentucky this year." I guess a man has to have his priorities straight.

When challenged about his blockage of the bill, Bunning responded to one democratic senator with an eloquent “tough sh*t,” and flipped his middle finger to an ABC News reporter trying to question him. I assume that is the same response he has for the over 10 percent of Kentuckians who are currently out of work. He can afford to stand on his principles while they wait for their next unemployment check.

Maybe he was planning to give them some money from his Jim Bunning Foundation, a non-profit charitable organization he runs with his wife Mary and Cincinnati tire dealer Bob Sumerel. Established in 1996, it has taken in a little over $500,000 in donations and income from autographs and baseball collectibles. Unfortunately, it has been able to give out only 25% of that to charities (mainly to Bunning’s own church), while Bunning himself has drawn $180,000 in salary for about one hour a week in work. Ethically, that’s such a grey area I’d call it black.

Democrats and even some Republicans blasted Bunning for his obstruction tactic on the funding bill. Sadly, a few stepped forward to praise him. Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee said Bunning should be “honored” by the senate, and South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint said “he’s my hero this week.” Wendy Caswell, founder of the Louisville Tea Party Movement is quoted as saying, “we’re all in support of Senator Bunning.” I guess these folks all have paying jobs right now.

The image I have of these southern senators, thumbs clutching their suspenders while they rear back and make loud, troublesome pronouncements, is not that of Jimmy Stewart, fighting the fight of the common man that they were elected to stand for, but Foghorn Leghorn, cartoon rooster who has no idea how foolish he really is.

The "Foot-Mouth" Disease

.

Wrong is wrong and stupid is stupid, no matter which side of an issue you sit on or which political ideal you support. We have to stop making excuses for people in positions of power who do dumb things. They should be held accountable for what they say. People listen…and some of those listeners are not intelligent enough to think for themselves.  In the philosophical words of the Spiderman universe, “with great power, comes great responsibility.”


Despite generally being an eloquent speaker, Barack Obama has put his foot in his mouth few times. His comment last year about his bowling skills being equivalent to the “special Olympics” was dumb and thoughtless. If he has any defense, it was that the statement was made off the cuff, without the assistance of his usual teleprompter. He was appropriately raked over the coals for his comment and apologized. Still, it was stupid. He should know better.


Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff, might consider a strong piece of duct tape over his lips after his statement in a private meeting calling some liberal activists “f**ing retarded.” He has been barbequed by Fox News, Sarah Palin and others in conservative media for being insensitive to those with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Palin, whose son has Down’s syndrome, has demanded his resignation. He too, issued an apology over his poor choice of words.


Unlike a lot of offensive words, the word “retard” had meaning before it became politically incorrect. As a verb, it means: To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede. The term is also used in music, as a means of slowing down the tempo. It’s a word that has meaning and usefulness, if used in the correct context. Although the use of the word as a slang descriptive is definitely considered offensive, I hope we don’t get to the point that a music teacher is reprimanded for using the word in class. Thinking must be done by both those who speak and those who hear.


There also seems to be a double standard among the guardians of political correctness. Sarah Palin posted on Facebook this statement about Rahm Emanuel, "I would ask the president to show decency in this process by eliminating one member of that inner circle, Mr. Rahm Emanuel, and not allow Rahm’s continued indecent tactics to cloud efforts." She continued her attack on various televised interviews, expressing her outrage at his insensitive comment.


Fair enough. If anyone has a right to be upset, she certainly does. A parent should stand up for their child, and if she were consistent in her outrage, it would be commendable. Unfortunately, her response to fellow conservative Rush Limbaugh was rather muted.


Limbaugh, in a strange broadcast in which he almost seemed to be supporting Rahm Emanuel, claimed “Our political correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards. I mean these people, these liberal activists are kooks. They are looney tunes. And I’m not going to apologize for it, I’m just quoting Emanuel. It’s in the news. I think their big news is he’s out there calling Obama’s number one supporters f’ing retards. So now there’s going to be a meeting. There’s going to be a retard summit at the White House. Much like the beer summit between Obama and Gates and that cop in Cambridge.”


When asked for a comment about Limbaugh’s remarks, a Palin spokesperson said, "Governor Palin believes crude and demeaning name calling at the expense of others is disrespectful." Ouch! That’s a far cry from demanding someone be fired. The next day, when asked to clarify that statement, the Palin camp answered that it was "the same comment they have given reporters for a host of other instances where someone had used the 'r' word and they are not singling out Limbaugh."


Maybe she should write this on her hand, “My child is not a political tool.”


I am curious what her response will be to Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall. Last week, at a press conference opposing the funding of Planned Parenthood, he made the following statement, "The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion who have handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the firstborn of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children.”


You might want to read that again to let it sink in. He went on to say, "In the Old Testament, the firstborn of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord," he added. "There's a special punishment Christians would suggest -- and with the knowledge that they have in faith, it's been verified by a study from Virginia Commonwealth University -- first abortions, of a first pregnancy, are much more damaging than later abortions."


After his comments sparked outrage by advocacy groups and parents of disabled children, he issued an apology, explaining that he was taken out of context, “Nevertheless, I regret any misimpression my poorly chosen words may have created as to my deep commitment to fighting for these vulnerable children and their families."


We all say stupid things. I’ve apologized many times to my family for slips of the tongue and thoughtlessly hurtful things I have said. Much as I may try, I’m sure it will happen again.


Still, I have not placed myself in front of a microphone. I have not stepped forward as a representative for others.  I do not anoint myself worthy of making decisions that will affect the course of our nation and the lives of my fellow Americans. Those who took those steps can accomplish great things or create great damage. Every word they say and every action they take should be weighed against the benefit of the greater good. It’s the price they pay for the choice they have made.